Women's tennis and equal pay

I imagine that most sports people would be pretty fucked off to be described as "entertainers".

Women's tennis gets loads of attention.
Especially if the woman playing is young and attractive.
FFS.

eades sport is not "part of the entertainment business"
the fact that some people are happy to pay to watch some events does not mean a. that event is now part of the entertainment business or b. that sports that do not attract much of a following are pointless

In fact, the power-serve and crash-volley style of a lot of men's tennis makes much of it really bloody boring these days.

Oh those poor, poor male tennis players being discriminated against so cruelly.

How dreadful for them. How they must cry themselves to sleep at night over the unfairness of it all.

Sport is part of the entertainment business, people watch it to be entertained, do you think people pay big money to go and watch or pay for Sky Sports to not be entertained?
Traditionally sport was participated in for personal honour and to compete but that was in the day when sport was amateur since most sports went professional it is as commercialised as anything else and so the prize money should reflect this.

I mean up and down the country, people are competing in sporting endeavours against each other. Sometimes the prize is a weekend in looe, sometimes the prize is a certificate, sometimes the prize is a place in another competition. And so on, all sorts of prizes.

People don't seem to understand this basic idea. Just because a competition has become popular with spectators, doesn't change what it fundamentally is.

I'm with you, SQ.

Wimbledon was not created as an entertainment based money-spinning exercise, no matter what people might think.

Nor was the olympic games.

Shocking stuff, huh?

I think a lot of people have sport and entertainment mixed up in their heads.

Wimbledon started as a small local competition. People competed because they enjoyed the game and they wanted to win a prize, and be the best.

For the competitors it is still all about being the best, winning the competition, getting a prize. The prize is now a whole bunch of things including cash, as the tournament is popular for people to watch. But the primary point of it is not entertainment. The primary point of it is that it's a competition that people enter because they want to win. Same as any other competition.

So for you any sporting event is about money money money.

That is a pretty sad state of affairs.

There was me thinking it was about people striving to be their best, working hard, having a highly competitive nature etc.

Depressing.

I'm at some of the views being expressed on this thread.

Wimbledon is many, separate competitions. The women's singles is one of them and the men's singles is the other. These are the highest profile competitions. There are equal prize 'pots' for each. And why shouldn't there be? The women are not competing against the men, so their physical differences have absolutely nothing to do with what money either competition should offer as a prize.

And as for how entertaining we find the games, or how sexually arousing certain players might be. Just how insulting can you possibly be?

Honestly. Use your brains, people!

Not for me personally but at professional level it does play some role. Prize money is paid out out of revenue generated by the tournament which comes from sources such broadcast rights and sponsorships, the mens game offer more opportunity to maximise and generate revenue ans so they should be entitled to a greater cut of the revenue as they are generating more of it than the women as a potential 5 sets creates more opportunities.

According to Thumbwitch's table (thanks by the way!) if they are looking at unevenness of pay they should first look at doubles vs singles.

How do 2 people playing a match get less than one person playing a match?

You could argue that they are doing half as much work each, but in that case it should be the same per pair as it is for one person playing a singles match.

Or alternatively "prize money" is not pay for work, it is a bonus, and people are doing the "work" (playing the game) for free.

So in your view the point of sport is commercial?

I think it should be less because women's matches will generate less commercial revenue for the tournament as a whole and so the prize money distribution should reflect this.

It makes me really sad that people actively want to take the situation that has been in places for the last 5 years and change it so that women who win get a lesser prize than men who win.

Logically this will be across the board, I assume, and apply to all competitions.

I thought that people were on the wind-up but now I'm starting to wonder.

Good grief.

aedes you believe that women's prizes should be less than men's prizes because their matches are shorter.

So do you generally think that the person who takes longer to win a competition should have a lesser prize? How is that going to work with things like running races?

They should both do the same number of sets and get the same prize money. How is it relevant that women play women and men play men? Why would you have to have them playing eachother for it to be an equal prize fund. It's just that a person wins wimbledon surely.

I think women should be paid less because womens matches typically do not last as long as mens and this means that less revenue can be generated through advertising and marketing. As if a womens match lasts 1hr 30min and a mens lasts 2hr 30min then there is more time for advert breaks etc.

you'd have to play in a LOT of tournaments to cover the cost of coaching, travel, living etc if you're at the lower end & establishing yourself.

but yes, sponsorship, parental support, sports grants, people being nice to you etc etc.

I've heard many stories of sportswomen struggling to get sponsors who don't insist on bikini shots as part of the deal.

..........................Singles......Doubles (per pair).....Mixed Doubles (per pair)
1st Round............£11,500............£5,250...................£1,300
2nd Round...........£20,125............£9,000....................£2,600
3rd Round............£34,375..........£16,000....................£5,200
4th Round............£68,750.............-.............................-
Quarter Finalist....£137,500..........£31,250..................£10,500
Semi Finalist........£275,000..........£62,500..................£23,000
Runner Up...........£650,000.........£125,000..................£46,000
Champion.........£1,100,000.........£250,000..................£92,000

Prize Money for Wimbledon 2011, male and female got the same.
I'm not sure but I think they still get something just for playing in the first round, even if they don't win.

But it's not a level playing field is it? The women are barred by the rules from playing 5 sets.

It's ridiculous to suggest women should be paid less simply on the basis of time played. It's like barring women from education then complaining that they can't spell.

YY they do all the junior tournaments and I guess if they are good can start getting some prize money in them, I don't know if it's much though.

The female players seem to move to professional at about 14 or 15. Male players are a bit older although I think boris becker was 17 or something when he first won wimbledon?

mm yes I guess they're mostly still teenage when they're working their way up aren't they. So not living independently anyway.